SHERLY THOMAS Vs. CHERTHALA SOUTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ninth respondent has constructed a compound wall on the boundary of his property which lies on either side of a canal. There were complaints from various corners that while putting up the compound wall, the ninth respondent has reduced the width of the canal and as a result, the free flow of water through the canal was obstructed. Based on the complaints, proceedings have been initiated by the second respondent against the ninth respondent. Ext.P20 is the notice issued by the second respondent to the ninth respondent. In terms of Ext.P20, the second respondent has called upon the ninth respondent to restore the width of the canal to its original position. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the second respondent is not concluding the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P20 notice to its logical end by causing the ninth respondent to restore the width of the canal. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent as also the learned counsel for the ninth respondent.

(3.) Placing reliance on Ext.P25 report submitted by the second respondent to the Assistant Director of Panchayat concerned, the learned counsel for the ninth respondent submitted that the ninth respondent has already restored the width of the canal to its original position.